In re Kameron Pearson Appeal from 19th District Court of McLennan County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-16-00010-CR IN RE KAMERON PEARSON Original Proceeding MEMORANDUM OPINION In this original proceeding,1 Relator Kameron Pearson, appearing pro se, seeks mandamus relief in the form of compelling the Respondent trial court judge to grant Pearson’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and delete the assessment of the attorney’s fees of his court-appointed attorney as court costs on the ground that Pearson was and remains indigent. The trial court allegedly denied the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, but the order included in Pearson’s record is one that denies a “Pro Se The application (petition) for writ of mandamus lacks proof of service on the State, which is a real party in interest in this proceeding because it was a party in the underlying criminal case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2. A copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all parties (i.e., the trial court judge and the State through the district attorney in this proceeding) and must contain proof of service. Id. R. 9.5. To expedite this matter, we invoke Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend these requirements. Id. R. 2. 1 Motion/Declaration of Inability to Pay Costs.” The State has filed a motion to dismiss this proceeding as moot. It asserts that the trial court has granted the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, and it attaches a filemarked copy of the trial court’s order that grants Pearson’s motion and orders that the requirement that Pearson pay attorney’s fees be deleted from the judgment. The State’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the application (petition) for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot. REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Petition dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 28, 2016 Do not publish [OT06] In re Pearson Page 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.